A version of this commentary appeared in The Oregonian on September 29, 1999.

Warning: Tobacco lawsuits may be habit forming

Politicians nationwide have been bitten by the litigation bug, and a dangerous new trend of government-ordered civil lawsuits is sweeping the nation. On September 22, the federal government filed suit against tobacco companies, seeking to recover the alleged costs paid by Medicare to treat smoking-related illnesses. This suit comes on the heels of the joint states' lawsuits against cigarette companies, in which Oregon took part.

As Oregon and other states have proven, these suits have little to do with the cost of health care for smokers, and more to do with filling state coffers. In mid-September, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala criticized the states for failing to dedicate their tobacco settlement monies to smoking-prevention and health programs, as many had promised. Instead, states have proposed directing their spoils to everything from water projects to government workers' insurance. Here in Oregon, legislators and lobbyists fought hard to spend the monies on education, but ultimately referred the decision to voters in the November 2000 election.

With strong voter opposition to tax increases, elected officials must think they've hit the jackpot. They've discovered a new, abundant source of revenue that comes with little political backlash.

On the surface it looks like we're all benefiting at the expense of a small, wealthy, currently unpopular group - but let's not delude ourselves. When the cost of doing business goes up, several things happen: employees see slower growth in their pay and benefits, dividends - which help pay for retirement pensions and more - stagnate or are reduced, and, in nearly every case, consumers pay higher prices. Witness, just after the states' tobacco settlement was approved, smokers saw an immediate increase in the price of cigarettes - essentially a new cigarette tax.

How hypocritical that the government has deemed tobacco a danger to society, only to become the chief beneficiary of its proceeds. Imagine the scrambling that would occur if these tobacco companies decided to pull their product from American markets - smokers wouldn't be the only ones to go through withdrawal.

Perhaps more unsettling than the clear disingenuous motivations in the tobacco suits is the fact that our elected officials are not stopping with tobacco. Last winter Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell called for cities to band together in a suit against gun manufacturers to help recover the costs associated with gun violence. (Portland is among the many cities still considering targeting the gun industry.) As Rendell explained, gun manufacturers "don't have the deep pockets of the tobacco industry," and multiple lawsuits "could bring them to the negotiating table a lot sooner." The legitimacy of the case is irrelevant, as Rendell expects the industry to fold before the case ever goes to court. Officials will get their settlement money, and gun owners will finance it through higher prices.

At least one gun manufacturer has decided not to play, however. To minimize its liability in response to the lawsuit threats, Colt's Manufacturing Company recently announced it will stop selling handguns to civilians. Instead of finding new revenue, what officials have found is a way to enact politically challenging gun control measures outside the legislature. Meanwhile hundreds of Colt's employees will likely lose their jobs, and thousands of law-abiding gun consumers (many of whom live in rural areas not participating in the suits) will lose the option to buy Colt's well-made guns.

Cigarettes and guns are so widely disliked that many support these lawsuits, or at least are not moved to defend the industries. Each settlement, however, could be interpreted as an admission of guilt, and thus a legal precedent making it easier for officials to win future liability cases against more socially acceptable industries. States and localities are already preparing to go after the former makers of lead-based paint. Cars, alcohol and fatty foods can all be proven to result in harmful health consequences and fatalities. There is no end to the number of industries that can be said to impose a cost on government. This litigation craze is limited only by our elected officials' imaginations - and their desires for new revenue sources.

John Coales, a plaintiffs' attorney in the states' tobacco suit, has highlighted the future for us. He said, "What's next? It's hard to say…. Unless the courts reject our approach, we will continue to utilize it to tackle industry bullies." Let's face it, each of us supports one or another of these "industry bullies," whether it's through buying paint, driving, smoking, drinking, or patronizing a fast-food restaurant. When that bully comes under fire, it'll look to you to finance the settlement through $5 Big Macs - if you can still buy them at all.